Ivan, you are doing pretty good and I believe your explanation is of gread help to everybody who was not very familiar with the theory. I hope my note didn't offend you.
Compliments, Mira --- Bagotronix Tech Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > M P wrote: > > One can find all that in the academic texts but > they take two hundred > > pages to start explaining it. If someone > explained that to me in a > > popular language in my early days, I would have > enjoyed my university > > time much more. And if all theories were > explained in such a way, it > > would take approximately one book for the whole > four year course. So, > > Ivan get to work. > > I'll take that as a complement. Thank you! > > There's just one problem: I am not a professor! > All I did was show up for > class, pay attention, and study hard (well, most of > the time). Doing that, > I managed a B in Fields I and an A in Fields II. > Not being a tenured prof, > any book I would write would not have standing in > academia. And if it was > too good and too easy to understand, it would reduce > the number of courses > and semesters needed for the EE degree! Tuition > revenues would plummet, > and there would be staff cuts! Textbook sales would > decrease! The need > for new construction of classrooms and expansion of > facilities would > disappear! Now do you understand the evils of > increased efficiency? ;-) > > There is lots of math that is needed to back up the > field theory. What I > wrote yesterday had no math proofs of the field > theory. So, in effect, > what I wrote was unsubstantiated. However, in order > to offer proof, I > would have to get into the math. While the math is > essential for a > complete understanding of fields, it is way beyond > what is needed for a > "working knowledge" of fields. And the math does > not help explain field > theory to someone whose math skills are less than > expert. IMO, the problem > with EE textbooks is that they rely entirely on math > to explain the theory. > Even among people who understand the math, page > after page of equations > tends to blur one's vision. What is needed is a > multi-faceted teaching > method: 1) explain the subject in plain language as > much as possible, 2) > give examples or draw analogies in plain language, > 3) present the math > proof, 4) explain how each step of the math proof > actually proves > something, and 5) give worked out examples using the > math proofs. I have > yet to encounter an EE textbook that does all these > steps. > > Oh, those profs! How clueless they were, about real > circuitry! My prof > for Fields I (also my faculty adviser) was a total > theoryhead. Every time > a discussion came down to prototyping a circuit, he > insisted that was too > simple a subject for him to waste his time on. He > didn't even approve of > his undergraduates fussing with actual circuits. A > waste of an engineer's > time, he thought - leave that to the technicians. > It was all I could do to > supress my anger when he exhibited that attitude. > Meanwhile, I would hang > out in the lab, helping other students struggle with > the proper pinout of > TO-92 and TO-220 transistors, hooking up the scopes > properly, how to take > measurements, etc. There were 3 of us in the lab > (all undergraduates) who > knew what we were doing, the rest of the students > were clueless (especially > the honors students). We spent more time helping > them than working on our > own projects. What made the difference for us 3 was > that we were into > electronics as a hobby before we went to college for > the EE degree. The > others had no previous exposure to electronics. I > have no idea what made > them decide to go into EE... > > Best regards, > Ivan Baggett > Bagotronix Inc. > website: www.bagotronix.com > > > M P wrote: > > One can find all that in the academic texts but > they take two hundred > > pages to start explaining it. If someone explained > that to me in a > > popular language in my early days, I would have > enjoyed my university > > time much more. And if all theories were explained > in such a way, it > > would take approximately one book for the whole > four year course. So, > > Ivan get to work. > > > > As for the vias, it mostly depends on the board > manufacturers. Let's say > > their minimum whole size is 15mils (realistic > value) and their specified > > minimum anular ring width is 8mils (again > realistic value) that would > > result in 15mil + (2 x 8mil) = 31mil. You can > either stick to their > > specs, or try to get down to 30mils and hope all > goes well (not > > recommended), or add 1mil to the annular ring > (trust no pcb > > manufacturer) and get 33mils overall diameter. > 1mil means a lot on a pcb > > and can be a difference between making the board > or not. I haven't seen > > any specific rules correlating the track width and > the via diameter. > > > > Igor > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum > > To Post messages: > mailto:[email protected] > > Unsubscribe and Other Options: > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com > > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
